This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++: why implicit delete in destructor?
- To: Mike Harrold <mharrold at cas dot org>
- Subject: Re: C++: why implicit delete in destructor?
- From: Sam TH <sam at uchicago dot edu>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:25:04 -0500
- Cc: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>,Jason Merrill <jason_merrill at redhat dot com>,Olaf Dietsche <olaf dot dietsche--list dot gcc-patches at exmail dot de>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <3AEEBE6B.32A59B6@codesourcery.com> <200105011404.KAA11363@mah21awu.cas.org>
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 10:04:37AM -0400, Mike Harrold wrote:
> >
> > Mike Harrold wrote:
> > >
> > [Jason wrote]
> >
> > > > Because for virtual destructors, if the dynamic type of the class defines
> > > > operator delete, we need to use that instead of the global one.
> > > >
> > > > For non-virtual destructors, as of 3.0 we won't call delete from the
> > > > destructor.
> >
> > > I guess the question is why these are in the destructor?
> > Huh? This discussion is getting more and more confused.
> >
> > The ABI has changed. we're not interested in fiddling with the old abi.
> > The new abi is documented at http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/
> >
> > Please read that, before coming back with more ABI related questions. Also
> > for this particular point please read 3.7.3.2 and 5.3.5 of the standard.
>
> Is it available freely yet? Perhaps more of us would read it if we didn't
> have to pay for it. It always struck me as rather illogical that one had
> to pay for a programming standard. Naturally I retract the comment if it
> is now freely available.
Well, it certainly appears to be freely available.
sam th --- sam@uchicago.edu --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
PGP signature